500G.L vs. CNAL.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

500G.L (Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc) and CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) are both exchange-traded funds - 500G.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500, while CNAL.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, 500G.L returned 15.05%/yr vs -0.03%/yr for CNAL.L. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. 500G.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNAL.L.

Performance

500G.L vs. CNAL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, 500G.L achieves a 10.57% return, which is significantly higher than CNAL.L's 8.97% return.

500G.L

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 4.53%
• YTD: 10.57%
• 6M: 9.87%
• 1Y: 29.10%
• 3Y*: 19.12%
• 5Y*: 15.05%
• 10Y*: 16.24%

CNAL.L

• 1D: -0.64%
• 1M: 0.48%
• YTD: 8.97%
• 6M: 10.81%
• 1Y: 37.06%
• 3Y*: 7.96%
• 5Y*: -0.03%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

500G.L vs. CNAL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
500G.L Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc	10.57%	9.44%	27.44%	19.89%	-8.86%	31.35%	13.81%	27.01%	-1.79%
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	8.97%	16.96%	16.16%	-18.82%	-20.03%	8.27%	35.63%	30.64%	-23.83%

Correlation

The correlation between 500G.L and CNAL.L is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.16
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2018	0.12

The correlation between 500G.L and CNAL.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.12 (all time) to 0.30 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

500G.L vs. CNAL.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

500G.L

500G.L Risk / Return Rank: 82
500G.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
500G.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
500G.L Omega Ratio Rank: 85
500G.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
500G.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

CNAL.L

CNAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
CNAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
CNAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CNAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CNAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

500G.L vs. CNAL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	500G.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.76	2.41	+0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.61	3.24	+0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.43	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.08	5.41	-1.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.27	15.33	-0.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

500G.L vs. CNAL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current 500G.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.76, which is comparable to the CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 500G.L and CNAL.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	500G.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.76	2.41	+0.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.05	-0.00	+1.05
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	1.05	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.07	0.33	+0.74

Drawdowns

500G.L vs. CNAL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum 500G.L drawdown since its inception was -25.52%, smaller than the maximum CNAL.L drawdown of -44.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 500G.L and CNAL.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	500G.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.52%	-44.83%	+19.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.12%	-6.91%	-0.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.12%	-26.58%	+5.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.12%	-42.19%	+21.07%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-25.52%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	-11.26%	+11.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.29%	-21.39%	+18.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.91%	2.44%	-0.53%

Volatility

500G.L vs. CNAL.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L) is 2.65%, while Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) has a volatility of 5.51%. This indicates that 500G.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNAL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	500G.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.65%	5.51%	-2.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.13%	10.58%	-3.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.55%	15.52%	-4.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.31%	31.33%	-17.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.54%	40.07%	-24.53%

500G.L vs. CNAL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

500G.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CNAL.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

500G.L vs. CNAL.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither 500G.L nor CNAL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both 500G.L and CNAL.L in my portfolio?

500G.L and CNAL.L have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, 500G.L or CNAL.L?

On fees, 500G.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, 500G.L or CNAL.L?

500G.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNAL.L.

What is the main difference between 500G.L and CNAL.L?

500G.L is categorized as S&P 500, while CNAL.L is China Equities. 500G.L tracks S&P 500, while CNAL.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for 500G.L and 0.35% for CNAL.L.